Thrown against this backdrop Judge Kasper-Ansermet’s grievance is essentially this: a committee with no statutory or otherwise mandate which serves as secretariat to a process for which there is no statutory or legal mandate of any kind and which is facially unconstitutional has rejected Judge Kasper-Ansermet’s request to amend the rules of procedure and evidence which were created and continue being amended without statutory mandate and in an unconstitutional manner did not give reasons for its rejection of Judge Kasper-Ansermet’s unconstitutional request which he had no authority to submit and the RPC had no authority to receive, consider or reply to because it has no authority to convene unless as a golf or bird-watching club (which should probably take place off the premises of this Court). Reduced to day-to-day scenarios, here is what happened: Judge Kasper-Ansermet did not like the fact that there was a left turn prohibited sign next to his house which he asked a person who stood on the side of the road and collected an illegal toll (allegedly for filling up a pothole in the absence of municipal services) to remove; this person refused and Judge Kasper-Ansermet demanded an explanation for the refusal. Boy, I wonder whom Judge Kasper-Ansermet has a side beef with. On the bright side of things, Judge Kasper-Ansermet’s reply to the RPC’s email shows that he still has keys to his office which is … a good thing one would suppose. A better thing would be writing a letter to the UN Legal Counsel entitled 'Time to Renegotiate the ECCC Agreement', as there is no amount of legislating from the bench in this Court that will alter the ECCC Agreement and the ECCC Law to what Judge Kasper-Ansermet wants and needs it to be to be able to function.